Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys by Subtype: Subgroup Analysis of BENEFIT-EXT at 7 Years After Transplant

The phase III Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-Line Immunosuppression Trial-Extended Criteria Donors Trial (BENEFIT-EXT) study compared more or less intensive belatacept-based immunosuppression with cyclosporine (CsA)-based immunosuppression in recipients of extended criteria donor kidneys. In this post hoc analysis, patient outcomes were assessed according to donor kidney subtype. In total, 68.9% of patients received an expanded criteria donor kidney (United Network for Organ Sharing definition), 10.1% received a donation after cardiac death kidney, and 21.0% received a kidney with an anticipated cold ischemic time ≥24 h. Over 7 years, time to death or graft loss was similar between belatacept- and CsA-based immunosuppression, regardless of donor kidney subtype. In all three donor kidney cohorts, estimated mean GFR increased over months 1-84 for belatacept-based treatment but declined for CsA-based treatment. The estimated differences in GFR significantly favored each belatacept-based regimen versus the CsA-based regimen in the three subgroups (p < 0.0001 for overall treatment effect). No differences in the safety profile of belatacept were observed by donor kidney subtype.

Long-Term Outcomes in Belatacept- Versus Cyclosporine-Treated Recipients of Extended Criteria Donor Kidneys: Final Results From BENEFIT-EXT, a Phase III Randomized Study

In the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-Line Immunosuppression Trial-Extended Criteria Donors (BENEFIT-EXT), extended criteria donor kidney recipients were randomized to receive belatacept-based (more intense [MI] or less intense [LI]) or cyclosporine-based immunosuppression. In prior analyses, belatacept was associated with significantly better renal function compared with cyclosporine. In this prospective analysis of the intent-to-treat population, efficacy and safety were compared across regimens at 7 years after transplant. Overall, 128 of 184 belatacept MI-treated, 138 of 175 belatacept LI-treated and 108 of 184 cyclosporine-treated patients contributed data to these analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) comparing time to death or graft loss were 0.915 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.625-1.339; p = 0.65) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.927 (95% CI 0.634-1.356; p = 0.70) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) plus or minus standard error at 7 years was 53.9 ± 1.9, 54.2 ± 1.9, and 35.3 ± 2.0 mL/min per 1.73 m² for belatacept MI, belatacept LI and cyclosporine, respectively (p < 0.001 for overall treatment effect). HRs comparing freedom from death, graft loss or eGFR <20 mL/min per 1.73 m² were 0.754 (95% CI 0.536-1.061; p = 0.10) for belatacept MI versus cyclosporine and 0.706 (95% CI 0.499-0.998; p = 0.05) for belatacept LI versus cyclosporine. Acute rejection rates and safety profiles of belatacept- and cyclosporine-based treatment were similar. De novo donor-specific antibody incidence was lower for belatacept (p ≤ 0.0001). Relative to cyclosporine, belatacept was associated with similar death and graft loss and improved renal function at 7 years after transplant and had a safety profile consistent with previous reports.